praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Though I am very slow in responding your mails, hope you are still in that
tempo & line of argument :-)) Here is my share of thoughts on your
observation.
Sri S prabhuji :
For the record, I have never emphasized on these externalities nor do I,
or anyone including Shankara, consider them crucial. Examples like Bhagwan
Ramana and Ramakrishna Paramahamsa will suffice to demonstrate that ochre
robes and that whole list of paraphrenalia you talk about is not critical
for sarvakarmasannyasa - in fact absence of any indicatory marks or
belongings is what characterizes vidwat sannyasa even according to the
Shruti -
bhaskar :
Oh!! that would be nice to hear prabhuji. So you are in agreement here
that a sarvakarmasannyAsi does not have to have any external
characteristics to tag himself as a 'saNyAsi'. I hope this would solve
half of our problem :-))
Sri S prabhuji :
so your erection of a strawman that you continue to beat down throughout
your post is quite unnecessary and uncalled for.
bhaskar :
I am afraid, this strawman you only erected by saying mere 'mental'
detachment does not serve the purpose & one MUST be there in saNyAsa
Ashrama to have any 'meaningful' mukti/mOksha or jeevan mukti.
Sri S prabhuji :
Forget about the saffron robes you keep referencing in a patronizing
manner - in the Mandukya karika, as well as his bhashya, Shankara
clarifies that such a vidwat sannyasi "should merely depend on strips of
cloth coverings and food that come to him by chance for the maintenance of
the body"
bhaskar :
have you ever given any thought why shankara says here " he (a vidvat
saNyAsi) SHOULD depend on strips of cloth coverings? when you yourself
said somewhere else that 'everything else' would be taken care by Lord
himself??
bhaskar :
But point to be noted here is this type of smArtha saNyAsa is quite
different from the 'paramahamsa saNyAsa' or paramArtha saNyAsa enjoined
elsewhere in the upanishad. For example bruhadAraNyaka (3-5-1) : 'Knowing
this Atman, brAhmaNa-s transcend longing for offspring, wealth and worlds
and live on alms'. Shankara's bhAshya on this maNtra is quite interesting.
Here he says : for there may be reasonably a pArivrAjya (i.e. going away
from home, a saNyAsa), 'other than that which belongs to the knowing
person, and is of the nature of transcending all desires. To elaborate
this point, shankara continue to clarify who is paramahamsa saNyAsi : "The
pArivrAjya which is of the nature of transcending the desires (eshaNa-s)
is ancillary to the knowledge of Atman, for it is of the nature of
renunciation of the desire opposed to the knowledge of brahman, and desire
is only in the sphere of avidyA". It is clear from this bhAshya vAkya that
shankara talking about paramahaMsa pArivrAjya-s who have, by the aid of
knowledge, transcends the avidyA kruta 'eshaNa-s'. And shankara concludes
in this same bhAshya : OTHER THAN THIS, there is a pArivrAjya in the form
of an Ashrama (an order of life), 'a' means to the attainment of
brahmalOka and other fruits
of action. It is in connection with this saNyAsa that wearing yajnOpaveeta
etc. are enjoined and that the linga ( the uniform, like wearing a saffron
cloth, carrying shishya vrunda, kamandala (a water pot) and other items
pertaining to this particular order) is enjoined".
Sri S prabhuji :
Bhaskar-ji Shankara in the commentary here says - "Therefore the knowers
of Brahman renounce rites AND their accessories such as the holy thread(!)
embrace the life of a MONK known as Paramahamsa and LEAD A MENDICANTS LIFE
LIVE UPON BEGGING - giving up the insignia of a monk's life prescribed by
Smrtis which are their MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD - for those who merely have
recourse to that life." What Shankara is saying is that a vidwat sannyasa
has to be FURTHER GIVE UP even the minimal accessories that a formal
ashrami sannyasi is allowed, and has to resort to living upon begging.
Your conclusion of trying to read novel meanings into the term sannyasa is
thus totally misfounded.
bhaskar :
my dear prabhuji it is not novel reading, it is your biased reading of the
bhAshya to float your pet theory of saNyAsa. Shankara's bifurcation here
is amply clear between two type of saNyAsa-s...one is eshaNa traya tyAga
rUpa saNyAsa and another is pArivrAjya in the form of an Ashrama...the
latter one is for attaining the brahmalOka and other fruits (brahmalOkAdi
phala prApti sAdhanaM). The former type of pArivrAjya saNyAsI-S do not
NECESSARILY have to have these type of labels...Therefore, I am afraid, it
is only your comical speculation of my understanding of bhAshya vAkya.
In short, what I am trying to say is the real saNyAsa through
saMyagjnAna..and this saMyagnAna itself has been considered saNyAsa
parexcellence (pAramArtha saNyAsa) and what you are trying to emphasize
here is MERE EXTERNAL appearance & activities of this saNyAsa that is
wearing a loin cloth, begging etc. Hope now you understand the difference
in approach to shankara bhAshya vAkya.
I am saying is that the knower of truth would think that he is doing
nothing while he sees, hears, touches, smells, eats, moves about, sleeps,
breathes, speaks, excretes, grasps, open or shuts his eyes, he would
always bear in mind that ONLY the senses function on their objects...AND
what you are saying is : NO, the person who knows this truth SHOULD
NECESSARILY wear a loin cloth & live on begging...It is regret that we are
ready to give prescription to even paramahamsa jnAnis also about their way
of living :-)) See, we are not allowing them to stay where they are, and
we want to push them to a room called saNyAsa Ashrama.
Kindly dont think I am belittling the efficacy of saNyAsa and its enormous
benefits in jnAna mArga.. I am more worried about your over enthu on
giving stipulated guidelines to Atma jnAni-s who are beyond this dehAtma
buddhi.
Sri S prabhuji :
There are vanaprastha ashramis who live in the forest as also tapasvis who
adopt sannyasa ashrama but are not Self-knowers - Shankara is
differentiating this while defining a vidwat sannyasi. The Shruti itself
makes the context clear.
bhaskar :
These are all mere English statements...Kindly give us Sanskrit originals
with reference & context for these conclusions we will study together.
Hope you would do the needful.
bhaskar :
It is quite evident from the above that a paramahamsa sanyAsi does not
have to live under a 'formal' saNyAsa flag and might not 'necessarily'
have characteristic marks of a particular Ashrama.
Sri S prabhuji :
My response:
Yes - because Shankara here is asking him to even renounce those insignia
and the paraphrenalia you alluded to earlier! He is asked to wear strips
of bark for clothing and live on the barest minimum of food.
bhaskar :
again why it is said that he should wear strips of bark for clothing and
'live' on the food?? Any thoughts?? And also you can note here that your
details of the above is totally uncalled & irrelevant as I am not denying
the saMyagdarshi-s in pArivrAjya saNyAsa Ashrama & their life style...My
contention is that this jnAna IS NOT RESTRICTED ONLY TO those who wear
strips & beg & this saNyAsa has something better than this mere external
lifestyle...Hope atleast now you got my point.
bhaskar :
Shankara in all his
bhAshya works quite explicitly explains what is paramArtha saNyAsa or
sarvakarma saNyAsa. Following are few examples :
(a) saNyAsena samyagdarshanena tatpUrvakena vA sarvakarma saNyAsena
(shankara in geeta bhAshya 18-49)..Here it is said that saNyAsa is nothing
but 'samyagdarshana' .
Sri S prabhuji :
Precisely my point Bhaskar-ji. In Shankara's lexicon samyag darshana is
possible ONLY for sannyasis - to the extent that the two become
synonymous. And what type of sannyasa he has in mind he makes it amply
clear at numerous points in his bhashya. He clarifies it here itself when
he says "samyag darshana tat purvakam va sarvakarmasannyasen a" leading to
giving up of ALL activities which is vidwat sannyasa.
bhaskar :
And you can also make it a point that this saNyAsis who are capable to
have saMyag darshana can be there in any ashrama & me might be atyAshrami
also...So, saNyAsa here NOT ALL ABOUT MERELY WEARING STRIPS and
BEGGING..There is something called jnAna to determine these
saNyAsi-s...And this jnAna can dawn to any deserved aspirant irrespective
of his/her Ashrama. You can deny the possibility of sarvakarma saNyAsi in
other Ashrama-s coz. this saNyAsi could see the inaction in action with
complete (paripUrNa) detachment.
bhaskar :
(b) saNyAsastu pAramArthikaH (geeta bhAshya 5-6) The context here is,
without observing karma yOga it is very difficult to get paramArtha
saNyAsa.
Sri S prabhuji :
This is because karmayoga is a preparatory step for attaining
chittashuddhi. Without passing high school you cannot do your PhD. And
after acquisition of chittashuddhi from karmayoga alone does one in stages
acquire knowledge and only then will it even be possible to embrace
sarvakarmasannyasa.
bhaskar :
Again out of context, I quoted this bhAshya to say paramahamsa saNyAsa is
pAramArthika jnAna and you started giving lecture why high school study is
required to do Phd. :-))
bhaskar :
For further details we can refer bhAshya in the 5th chapter 8th
& 9th verses...Here shankara explains paramArtha saNyAsi as
'paramArthadarshee' . Here shankara clarifies that this paramArthadarshi
have the adhikAra of 'sarvakarma saNyAsa'. (sarvakAryakAryakar aNa
cheshtAsu karmasu akarma eva pashyataH samyagdarshinaH) .
Sri S prabhuji :
Bhaskar-ji do you see what Shankara is saying here - What Shankara is
saying here is "Only the right seer, the paramarthadarshee BECOMES FIT TO
RNOUNCE ALL WORKS" he gives an example here and says the no one after
seeing the absence of water in a mirage will drink water - in other words
once one is a Knower then ANY FORM OF KARMA should immediately cease.
bhaskar :
prabhuji, I think you are reading too much between the lines here...See
just for example, without giving an iota of consideration to shankara's
own statement that : sarvakAryakAryakaraNa cheshtAsu karmasu akarma eva
pashyataH samyagdarshinaH...and keep on singing the old song :-)) How a
saMyagdarshi would see akarma in karma?? is the key point...if saNyAsa is
an absolute inert state, why shankara even bother to say this?? any
thoughts??